50-50 accident claim

Hi all,

A good friend of mine has been involved in an accident a few months back and the claim is still ongoing.

He was on his motorcycle, overtaking the standstill traffic and was hit by a car from his lane turning into a side road on the right.

My friend sent me an email explaining his case, which you can see below.

I was moving on West End Lane which is a quite busy and Central Lane, when there was heavy traffic and no car was moving.
Suddenly I saw a car moving out of the lane (he had an indicator which he turned on last minute as he was pulling out) and due to the rain I had no time to react, which resulted to an accident. The front part of the car hit my motorbike in the middle part of it (which suggests I was already almost ahead of the car when he hit me).

The car driver was more than 70ish (he was not insured- but somehow he solved that) and he obviously trying a U turn as he was fed up from the traffic. However at that point there was a little mews houses road on our right(west hampstead mews). Because of that the solicitors say it was a right hand junction, and I should be more careful and that’s why I should go for the 50-50 offer which I have already from the other party’s insurance.

The insurance company of the third party offered 50-50 blame and my friend’s insurance company told him to accept 50-50 blame since they argue that this is the case when the motorcycle overtakes a slow moving traffic and the third party turns into a junction, and he won’t get a better deal.

Is that correct?

I mean, he was overtaking slowly the standstill traffic and the old man turned without noticing or indicating. In addition, my friend was already past most of the car since he was hit at the middle of the bike with the front of the car. It doesn’t seem right that the third party is not to blame 100%.

Any relevant experiences or opinions on how to go forward?


Btw, I believe that the third party’s insurance company may have used the following case to push for the 50-50 blame.

Hillman v Tompkins(1995)

On the same note though, my friend could use the following case to push for zero blame on his part.

Davis v Schrogin (2006)

Unfortunately I had a similar experience, I was on a hire bike under their insurance so I didn’t put up much of a fight as it wouldn’t impact my own insurance but both parties advised me it would be a 50 - 50 outcome.

Our legal system works mostly on a legal precedent basis, past cases in court will dictate how future cases are dealt with and this is one that has come up a fair few times in the past.

Their argument is that although you have broken none of the highway code rules as there was a junction ahead you should have taken more care by reducing your speed and anticipating a car turning in the road.

Its all bullshit but unfortunately there is not much that can be done…

Unfortunately not, after some reading I put the same information to the solicitor and was told that the first case would take legal precedent as it involved turning into a road and not a U turn.

“although you have broken none of the highway code rules as there was a junction ahead you should have taken more care by reducing your speed and anticipating a car turning in the road.”

what he said,

Totally understand what you are saying.

I have the following two points to make:

  • The latest case is pretty much exactly what my friend experienced: Beasley v Alexander (2012)

  • In addition, irrespective of the speed of the motorcycle, at the time of the accident, my friend had already passed most of the car (even the driver), since he was hit by the front of the car (where the front wheel is).

Can you briefly describe your accident?

The thing is you can’t be sure as he did not complete the manoeuvre. He could have been performing a U-Turn for all we know.


yeah the fact that your friend had already passed the car may make a difference as regardless of speed or due care he couldn’t have reasonably been expected to execute any kind of evasive action.

my incident happened on green lanes, overtaking stationary traffic, lady decides to turn right without indicating and I hit the front of the car. The lady then had the cheek to ask whether I’m supposed to be overtaking on the right or left hand side! (crazy how many people don’t know basics)

she also said she was taking her mother to the hospital and her father was also ill so she wasn’t completely focused.

even given all the above facts both the 3rd party and my solicitor pushed a 50 - 50 split.

Like I said though it wasn’t on my insurance policy so I didn’t put up much of a fight and just accepted.

P.S you need to change your picture to the beautiful new machine you picked up! :slight_smile:

Can’t really understand why your case is a 50-50… that’s ridiculous…

And there needs to be a cut-off point between the due care and the point where there is negligence or careless driving from the third party.

Will update my pic soon :wink:

From what I understand , even if The Rider was going with 5 miles/hour, because he already passed the car driver, the outcome would’ve been the same … So … the speed shouldn’t really be a decisive factor here.

I think most of the cases you’ll be suggested to accept 50-50 , just because they don’t really care, and they just want to finish quicker , and plus they are just testing you because there are so many people who don;t really know what they are doing and they will just “oh Ok … i’ll accept it” … So it’s up to you to fight back , and you might get a better deal , or 0 fault at all.

PM T.C. Or Kaos here for advice, they may be able to help…

Or tell your friend to get in touch with White Dalton if he thinks his insurance is not doing him justice.

Insurance companies will want a quick resolution and they won’t push sometimes.

All of the above is regardless of my opinion - I don’t know enough about the law to say whether or not it’s a 50-50, 70-30 or 99-1… :smiley:

Thanks mate!

take the 50-50.

what I don’t get is your mate suggests he saw him indicate at last minute but then says he was hit by the front of the car middle of his bike which he suggested he was nearly past the car, I see it as he saw him indicate before he was passing but carried on

Check with Kaos, however I believe their was a case in around 2012 that supports a no fault for a biker overtaking static traffic. I might be wrong though.

I assume that if you are at the tail of the car and the indicator starts flashing, within a second you will be at the front of the car.

There is no way you can stop so quickly if you are doing 25-30mph.

@Bang2Rights I have seen a couple of cases that indeed there is no fault for the rider.

What amazes me is that they use a case which is 19 years old when the most recent ones do not fault the rider at all.